LAWS(P&H)-2012-3-425

KITAB SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Decided On March 14, 2012
KITAB SINGH Appellant
V/S
State Of Haryana And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 27.4.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (Civil Writ Petition No. 7228 of 2011) filed by appellant Kitab Singh for setting aside the order dated 13.12.2010 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, exercising the powers of the Director Consolidation, Haryana, has been dismissed. Though there is delay of 3 days in filing this appeal and the appellant has filed application (CM No. 3936-LPA of 2011) for condoning the delay, yet we have heard learned counsel for the appellant on merits, and gone through the impugned order as well as the order dated 13.12.2010, passed by the Director Consolidation.

(2.) Undisputedly, it is the case of the appellant that when the consolidation took place in the village, he was allotted less area, therefore, deficiency in the area allotted to him be made good. Admittedly, the consolidation proceedings took place in the year 1962-63. During the said proceedings or immediately thereafter, the appellant did not approach the authorities by filing appeal or revision, provided under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as '3the Act'). However, after the lapse of about 45 years, the appellant moved an application under Section 42 of the Act for making good the deficiency in the area allotted to him. The Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, exercising the powers of the Director Consolidation, Haryana, dismissed the said application on the ground that the application was hopelessly time barred and at such a highly belated stage, the consolidation proceedings cannot be re-opened afresh. It is settled law, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat, Kakran Versus Additional Director of Consolidation, 1997 8 SCC 484 that an application under Section 42 of the Act is to be filed within a reasonable time. Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. No merit. Dismissed.